Messages - tencigars

The question originally, I believe, was whether there was any correlation at all between the high GPA and LSAT scores of law students, and Yale admittees in particular, and qualitites of admirable character, or at least interesting personality.

Beano asserted that there was zero correlation.

I am not arguing a strong correlation, but rather the presence of some correlation.

The gist of my argument so far has been that reason is inherently positive as well as being a tool that can be used for a range of ends, some good, some bad.

..The only somewhat interesting tidbit in this discussion/flamewar, in my opinion, is tencigars's stated disillusionment upon figuring out that having a high GPA/LSAT does not imply that one is an interesting/admirable person. So we could discuss that, if anybody wants to.

..You (tencigars) have a high GPA and LSAT too ... So, when you reflect on that fact, do you think that your high GPA and LSAT have much to do with the things about you that you think make you interesting and/or admirable? You don't have to be nice or humble or tactful to have a high GPA. You don't have to have interesting ideas or life experiences to score well on the LSAT. I don't know ... I just hadn't really considered the idea that there would be a correlation.

The seeming lack of such a correlation in law students was on my mind before I read Alci's post, and I'd welcome a discussion of it...Can you think of anything to argue on the side of there being a positive correlation?

Perhaps something along the lines of many evils being unreasonable, e.g., racism, sexism, etc.?

Racism is certainly unreasonable. The basis, a belief in the gross inferiority of another race, is fallaciously arrived at, as are racists' reasons for the treatment of members of other races, even if one assumed, arguendo, the accuracy of the first premise.

Sexism..similarly unreasonable.

Religious persecution..also very similarly unreasonable. Come on! Launching a crusade to kill men, women, and children..in the name of Christ? A guy who historically taught against such actions.

So some great evils are based on and facilitated by very poor reasoning.

Here's a new thought..

Consider the effectiveness of cognitive therapy, which studies now show is at least as effective for depression and several other disorders as medication. Cognitive therapy is basically the application of reason to a person's neurosis or psychosis. E.g., helping him achieve a more healthy, balanced perspective on the subject(s) of their fears or sadness.

And cognitive therapy, which is relatively new, has been around for hundreds perhaps thousands of years in Asian cultures in other forms. E.g., the Dalai Lama in his book The Art of Happiness says that most emotional problems (unhappiness) are, under Buddhist philosophy, due to "wrong-thinking."

Again, it would seem that poor reasoning, or the absence of application of reasoning, contributes to "evils."

And the evils that individuals suffer from are passed on and inflicted on others. Studies have shown that those who cause pain and suffering to others, etc., often have profound psychological problems themselves.

Example: Stalin was miserable. He suffered from extreme paranoia that led him to murder those around him, even friends and relatives (forgetting the other 40 million deaths attributed to him).

Example: A university study showed that people who were happy, coming out of a movie theater after seeing a comedy, etc., were much more likely to help others, stangers on the street who asked for assistance, than those who were unhappy.

Do you see where I am going with this, beano?

Jumping ahead a couple steps..

Intelligence, or its application in reasoning (science), has replaced religion as the light that dispells darkness. The LSAT attempts to measure reasoning ability. Law schools look for those they think may become brilliant legal reasoners. In law school and out, reasoning will be our occupation, out stock in trade.

Combine that with the fact that as lawyers, legal professionals, we are supposed to "profess" a belief in justice and the equitable resolution of disputes.

Is there no grounds to expect a greater percentage of individuals with admirable character in law school than elsewhere?

..The only somewhat interesting tidbit in this discussion/flamewar, in my opinion, is tencigars's stated disillusionment upon figuring out that having a high GPA/LSAT does not imply that one is an interesting/admirable person. So we could discuss that, if anybody wants to.

..You (tencigars) have a high GPA and LSAT too ... So, when you reflect on that fact, do you think that your high GPA and LSAT have much to do with the things about you that you think make you interesting and/or admirable? You don't have to be nice or humble or tactful to have a high GPA. You don't have to have interesting ideas or life experiences to score well on the LSAT. I don't know ... I just hadn't really considered the idea that there would be a correlation.

The seeming lack of such a correlation in law students was on my mind before I read Alci's post, and I'd welcome a discussion of it...Can you think of anything to argue on the side of there being a positive correlation?

Perhaps something along the lines of many evils being unreasonable, e.g., racism, sexism, etc.?

Racism is certainly unreasonable. The basis, a belief in the gross inferiority of another race, is fallaciously arrived at, as are racists' reasons for the treatment of members of other races, even if one assumed, arguendo, the accuracy of the first premise.

Sexism..similarly unreasonable.

Religious persecution..also very similarly unreasonable. Come on! Launching a crusade to kill men, women, and children..in the name of Christ? A guy who historically taught against such actions.

So some great evils are based on and facilitated by very poor reasoning.

Here's a new thought..

Consider the effectiveness of cognitive therapy, which studies now show is at least as effective for depression and several other disorders as medication. Cognitive therapy is basically the application of reason to a person's neurosis or psychosis. E.g., helping him achieve a more healthy, balanced perspective on the subject(s) of their fears or sadness.

And cognitive therapy, which is relatively new, has been around for hundreds perhaps thousands of years in Asian cultures in other forms. E.g., the Dalai Lama in his book The Art of Happiness says that most emotional problems (unhappiness) are, under Buddhist philosophy, due to "wrong-thinking."

Again, it would seem that poor reasoning, or the absence of application of reasoning, contributes to "evils."

And the evils that individuals suffer from are passed on and inflicted on others. Studies have shown that those who cause pain and suffering to others, etc., often have profound psychological problems themselves.

Example: Stalin was miserable. He suffered from extreme paranoia that led him to murder those around him, even friends and relatives (forgetting the other 40 million deaths attributed to him).

Example: A university study showed that people who were happy, coming out of a movie theater after seeing a comedy, etc., were much more likely to help others, stangers on the street who asked for assistance, than those who were unhappy.

..The only somewhat interesting tidbit in this discussion/flamewar, in my opinion, is tencigars's stated disillusionment upon figuring out that having a high GPA/LSAT does not imply that one is an interesting/admirable person. So we could discuss that, if anybody wants to.

I think your reading of tencigars's comment is a bit overliteral; I read it as implying the existence of a negative corellation rather than a zero corellation - an understandable remark in context, inasmuch as this thread opens with an insult.

I don't think he meant that there was actually a negative corellation -- did you, tencigars? You (tencigars) have a high GPA and LSAT too ... So, when you reflect on that fact, do you think that your high GPA and LSAT have much to do with the things about you that you think make you interesting and/or admirable? You don't have to be nice or humble or tactful to have a high GPA. You don't have to have interesting ideas or life experiences to score well on the LSAT. I don't know ... I just hadn't really considered the idea that there would be a correlation.

Yes, you are correct..I did not mean to imply a negative correlation. I can, however, see how one might have read that into my post, given the context.

The seeming lack of such a correlation in law students was on my mind before I read Alci's post, and I'd welcome a discussion of it.

Unfortunately, my four month old daughter seems to be starting to fuss in the other room. I will have to check back a bit later. 'Till then, can you think of anything to argue on the side of there being a positive correlation? Perhaps something along the lines of many evils being unreasonable, e.g., racism, sexism, etc.?

You're right. I'm done with this thread. It's sad too, since every other school can be discussed with calm and relevance.

EDIT: That70s, your argument is laughable. My standards for rudeness, selfishness, and attacking have nothing to do with anybody deciding what valuable "free speech" is - as I delineated in my earlier post, that's a legal matter. Nobody is on the Supreme Court here. Decency is another matter; it's subjective and it's about community standards...so yes, I do think I have the "free speech" to tell you you're out of line. Leave it to a future law student to try to make everything a constitutional issue... I'm audi.

If this were an exam hypothetical, an issue you've identified as primary (in this post as well as another) is whether or not it is appropriate to respond to the first post in a thread long after the date it was written. Has there been a custom developed in that respect? If so, I am unaware of it. Otherwise, I don't find such an action particularly heinous.

Maybe there's no official custom, but I usually don't start randomly posting insulting things in threads before reading them fully. I've done it in the past and was quickly (and justifiably) called out. It's an etiquette issue.

Hang on just a moment here. The offending post in question is at the top of the thread. There's no need to preserve an accurate historical record here; it would have been perfectly possible for Alci to edit it to say something more like:

"This thread is for discussions among people who plan to go to Yale. If you want to trash Yale, please do so on the Harvard thread. "

Instead what's left to be the first thing anyone who searches for "Yale" sees is an insult directed at anyone not admitted to YLS.

I'll buy that. Maybe he just didn't think about going back and changing it. Keep in mind, I had the same reaction when I read this thread back in January; it's silly to be carrying on about this at such a late stage. Why no uproar back then? Why now?

My point about going back to read the whole thread is because, as you know Anton, many of us who have posted on this thread for a while have already made this point beano shared. It's just plain mean and kinda random to sit here and tell Alci he's a horrible person for the millionth time because of some random comment on LSD...don't you think?

I only very recently encountered the thread. New posts move it to the top of the forum. It caught my attention, and the first post--the one that began the thread and set its direction--was the one I discussed. I did read a few pages before responding and didn't see something similar to what I had to say.

If this were an exam hypothetical, an issue you've identified as primary (in this post as well as another) is whether or not it is appropriate to respond to the first post in a thread long after the date it was written. Has there been a custom developed in that respect? If so, I am unaware of it. Otherwise, I don't find such an action particularly heinous.

I don't get your meaning of "random" in "It's just plain mean and kinda random."

As for "mean," well, I saw my reply as a response to meanness. Alci's ugly disclaimer does not appear "some random comment," since (1) he started the thread with it, (2) he did not amend it, (3) he has continously defended it, and (4) he has demonstrated further, similar insults.

Why are you defending him at the expense of respect for fact and reason?

WTF? TenCigars, why you making me have to be a b*tch again? (I swear I'm too ghetto to go to an Ivy League school.)

As beano has already shared with you, most of us agree with you about some of the tone of the thread. We've all discussed it and reached detente on this issue IN THE PAST. This thread was locked for a while because of it IN THE PAST. We don't really need anyone reminding us again of why we're all a bunch of pretentious arseholes, because, as has already been stated and restated, that has been done IN THE PAST. Get it? Let me repeat myself for good measure. IN THE PAST.

Perhaps you, Oracle of Wisdom, should try reading the multiple other pages of this thread before inserting/asserting your $0.01. Or you can continue generalizing about a group of people based on one person's post months ago for which he's caught more than enough flack, even from yours truly. Or you can show yourself the dammnn door. Either is fine with me.

Well, I wasted a few minutes reading the first page of the thread again, as you suggested. I did not find an intelligent, substantive reply to the portion of my post directed to you. I did, however, find some rather pathetic sophistry:

"This is the type of post that I was trying to avoid with the disclaimer. ..I merely wished to let people know from the beginning that the thread would be about Yale."

At best foolish; at worst insulting. If you actually believe that starting a thread with "If Yale makes you feel inadequate, please look away" is likely to "avoid the type of post" with which I replied, or that by doing so you were "merely letting people know the thread would be about Yale," you are deluding yourself as well as reasoning very poorly. If you don't believe it, which I hope for your sake is the case, you are arguing ineptly and insulting your audience by your estimation that they will find it compelling.

"This is more like you going to a Ferrari enthusiasts' meeting and telling them to stop talking about their cars out of consideration of the Kia drivers who might come in."

Ugh. You dig yourself deeper. "Kia drivers"! Further, your reasoning is again fallacious: I didn't see a post that attempted to dissuade a conversation about Yale. The impetus for the the initial rebuke, and mine, was your first line--a backhanded insult with an implicit ugliness--and those rebukes were soleley in response to your post. Pretending otherwise is analogous to Bush saying "Don't denigrate the National Guard" when questioned about indications of impropriety in his record.

Disclaimer: If hearing other people talk about Yale makes you feel inadequate , please look away.

-----------------

*Sigh*

More and more I am realizing that high GPA and LSAT scores do not correspond to qualities of admirable character or even interesting personality. It seems the only common denominator among so-called overachievers is an ability to recognize the bottom line and work effectively toward it. Intelligent grinders all, some, let's hope, with more to them.

And to Alcibiades let me say, you didn't just win a prize for first place.

As another poster said, you haven't achieved anything yet. In my opinion, you won't have until/unless you contribute meaningfully to society. Acceptance to a law school, any law school, is just an opportunity to develop a skill (not even a true education with inherent value). What you do with that skill is what matters.

Take some advice from the son of one my favorite poets:

"Young man, the secret of my success is that at an early age I discovered that I was not God."—Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.

More and more I am realizing that high GPA and LSAT scores do not correspond to qualities of admirable character or even interesting personality.

Of couse high GPA and LSAT don't imply admirable character or interesting personality ... why would they? Some people would claim that high GPA/LSAT = intelligent/hard worker, but even that's debatable, even though those are the qualities those numbers are meant to reflect. I don't think *anybody* would claim that high GPA/LSAT = interesting/admirable person.

Many of us have the same kinds of problems with the same kinds of comments on this thread that you probably have problems with (not too long ago, I was bitching about them on here myself, so maybe I am even being hypocritical by responding to you like this ). I don't think you will find anybody to argue with about the content of your post -- because I doubt anybody disagrees with anything you said. If people react negatively, it won't be because they disagree, it will be because they don't feel they need this lecture again.

I think most YLS admits already realize that the fact that they got into YLS doesn't mean they are *automatically* awesome, cool, interesting, admirable people. So ... I hope you are aware (you probably are) that the fact that they got into YLS also doesn't mean they are *automatically* arrogant, elitist, nose-to-the-grindstone, bottom-line-focused, boring people who think they are God's gift to the world or whatever either.

Just like the people who talk about any school in any thread on this board, we have many different personalities. Some of us post stupid things, some of us post informative things, some of us post snobby things, some of us post irrelevant things, etc. etc. Don't judge us all or think that we all need a lecture or something (not that you were necessarily judging us, exactly) just because a few comments seem a little out of line.

As you suspected might be the case, I pretty much agree with you.

The only thing I question, and now am pondering, is whether there is in fact "absolutely no reason to think that high GPA and LSAT might imply admirable character or interesting personality."

Despite my earlier expression of disappointment in the first representative of admitted Yale students, I tend to think that there is some correlation..though less than my initial expectations (a cause of some small disillusionment).